Witnesses corroborate Romney’s anti-Muslim bigotry

Mitt Romney ran into a little trouble yesterday when the Christian Science Monitor ran a report today from Mansoor Ijaz, who recently asked Mitt Romney whether he would consider a Muslim-American for a cabinet post. Concluding that Muslims are too small a religious minority to qualify for a cabinet post, Romney reportedly said he would not.

Initially, the Romney campaign didn’t deny the reported remarks, but a few hours later, the candidate and his aides moved the goalposts a bit — Romney said he was asked whether he needed a Muslim-American in his cabinet, not whether he’d consider a Muslim-American for his cabinet. Romney added, “I would choose people based on their merits…. I’m open to having people of any faith, ethnic group.”

There have been several relevant developments since. First, contacted for comment, Ijaz literally called “bullsh*t.”

“This guy is lying now to the American people,” said Ijaz. “He probably never imagined someone would come out and write a piece the way I did. And I think he made a serious mistake in judgment in trying to disown what he said…. Everything he said today is simply trying to reconfigure this item, which is he doesn’t feel there is a need to put people of Islamic faith into his cabinet.”

So, it’s a he-said/he-said situation? Not exactly. Greg Sargent reported late-yesterday on accounts from credible Republicans who corroborated Ijaz’s story, and make it clear that Romney has been caught lying about his willingness to discriminate.

Greg’s first report:

TPM Election Central has learned that at a private fundraising luncheon in Los Vegas three months ago, Romney said a second time he would probably not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet — and on this occasion, he made other comments that one witness described as “racist.”

The witness, Irma Aguirre, a former finance director of the Nevada Republican Party, paraphrased Romney as saying: “They’re radical. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.”

A second witness, a self-described local registered Republican named George Harris, confirmed her account.

Aguirre told Greg, “I can’t remember the exact words he used, but that was the explanation. We left thinking, `Wow, what a racist comment. He automatically assumed that all Muslims are radical.'”

And this led to Greg’s second report:

We’ve now discovered that there’s a contemporaneous account of this episode in something called Liberty Watch Magazine, which Harris publishes. In the September 2007 issue is this account by Editor Mike Zigler: “…when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently addressed a group of a prominent local conservatives at a Las Vegas fundraiser, George lobbed the first question: ‘If you are elected President,” he asked, “will you include any Muslim members in your cabinet?'”

Romney said, “Not likely.”

By any reasonable measure, Mitt Romney said publicly that he would discriminate against Muslims, and did so more than once, and then lied about it. It’ll be interesting to see a) if Republican primary voters care (in some right-wing circles, I’m afraid this might actually help Romney); and b) whether the media will bother to take this seriously. So far, this is a fairly big deal online, but traditional outlets have expressed very little interest.

I know this gets tiresome, but if a leading Democratic candidate vowed to discriminate against a religious minority, and then lied about it, do you suppose reporters might care? The bogus story about a waitress not getting a tip caused a mini-frenzy. Why not Romney’s bigoted remarks?

“I know this gets tiresome…”

It is tiresome; but not because you keep bringing it up… it’s tiresome because reporters don’t report both sides equivalently.

So keep bringing it up!

  • Romney would win points with Republican loyalists if he stuck with his “not likely” position on appointing Muslims to cabinet offices. I know that’s how most of my Republican acquaintances feel.

    Now he’s waffling about it, and will wind up pleasing no one. He’s looking more and more like presidential material, isn’t he?

  • Let’s get realistic. A candidate as polished as Romney has surely practiced his talking points about Muslims and jihad. This is just too blatant a mistake to come from a professional like Romney. As a CEO of a multi-national company, he’s been trained to be sensitive to what prejudice sounds like and wouldn’t make that kindergarten mistake. And as a Mormon under scrutiny, he’s ultra-tuned to prejudice as well.

    The more likely scenario is a misquote. For example, when someone quotes him as saying “muslims are radical and can’t be negotiated with,” isn’t it more likely he was talking about extremists?

  • Shawn, assuming you’re not being sarcastic, Romney wasn’t asked if he’d consider a Muslim extremist for a cabinet post, he was asked if he’d consider a qualified Muslim.

    I think Romney was pandering to the assumed prejudices he thinks many in the GOP have against Muslims. Unfortunately for him, not every Republican is a bigot.

  • Romney’s positions change as often as the weather, it seems, and for a guy who purports to have his faith as a guiding principle, he sure plays fast and loose with the truth.

    What a weasel.

  • Why not Romney’s bigoted remarks?

    Because Romney’s remarks are exactly what you expect a Republican candidate to believe, while not tipping a waitress is an example of Democratic hypocricy. Therefore Romney’s antics are news in the same way “dog bites man” is news.

    The Republicans have stacked the deck well with this one – everyone EXPECTS Republican politicians to be scum-sucking low-life people who have all of the worst traits of a politician and a human being. So when they display some bad trait and the opposition points to it and says “see, they’re crooks and bad people!” the press shrugs and says “well, what did you expect?” and their voting base shrugs and says “all politicians are crooked and horrible people – so we’ll just vote for the ones who promise us what we want to hear”.

    It’s much like the low bar the press set for Bush in the 2000 election cycle. Everyone expected him to be a stupid jackass, so when he acted like a stupid jackass it wasn’t news. But if he managed to say something and NOT come across as a stupid jackass, it was hailed as an amazing political move for him.

  • (in some right-wing circles, I’m afraid this might actually help Romney)

    Ya think?

    So far, this is a fairly big deal online, but traditional outlets have expressed very little interest.

    Noticed that, eh?

    if a leading Democratic candidate vowed to discriminate against a religious minority, and then lied about it, do you suppose reporters might care? The bogus story about a waitress not getting a tip caused a mini-frenzy. Why not Romney’s bigoted remarks?

    This isn’t some chance moral failing on the part of a few reporters, nor is it something the corporate press could be expected to “wake up” from. Reporters and editors are like this because that is what media ownership expects of them. The corporate press is part of the Republican establishment. They report anti-Republican stories when they have to, and anti-Democratic stories when they want to. And they want to most of the time. Even if the stories are ridiculous, like the one about Hillary’s laugh.

  • From The Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi, Chapter 5:

    21 And he had caused the acursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.
    22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
    23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

    In 1978, the Mormon church published Official Declaration 2, which repealed the ban on priesthood to those of Negro ancestry. This declaration did not extend to any other dark skinned peoples. While I doubt that most practicing LDS actually believe or support 2nd Nephi it’s interesting that the church has never issued another Official Declaration extending the priesthood to all, regardless of skin color.

  • We progressives can’t really fathom the minds of the people Romney is trying to win over. The knuckledraggers “know” that all Muslims want to convert the rest of the world to their religion (just like Christians do) and they take that idea and go crazy with it. The fundie Christians have made Islam into a maniacal bogeyman, and they’re terrified of it beyond reason. This fear makes them stupidly punish anyone who they think is giving the Islamic hordes any ground whatsoever.

    We’ve got a serious retard problem in America, and they are the only ones anymore who are proud to be Republicans, hence the wall-to-wall insanity in the Republican primary. Poor Mittflopper is trying to ride the tiger, playing the good Crusader to suck up to a bunch of people who think Mormonism is a cult. If he’s the nominee, many of the people who now support Rudy will stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. They’re religious bigots, and the Dems, hated as they are, are all “real Christians”.

    IMO religious bigotry is stronger than all the other varieties, hence the polling numbers showing atheists as less electable than gays, blacks, and all other minority groups.

  • One of the few things that bothers me about the Mormon Church is the fact that it was a racist organization until recently.

    I can understand a group saying it doesn’t like blacks. I can understand a group changing its mind. However, if you go from discriminating against blacks one day to welcoming blacks the next day you have some explaining to do. The easiest, and probably best, explanation is to say I was wrong and now I have seen my mistake and am sorry that I was wrong in the past. It is far tougher to say that my past position was correct and my current position is correct so I don’t need to say “I’m sorry.”

    It seems to me that as a thinking member of the church that you can either agree with the church or you can say that the church’s position was wrong in the past.

    I might have missed it but I never heard Romney say the Church’s position on blacks was wrong. Now he says that he won’t appoint a Muslim. It seems this confirms a pattern and Romney needs to explain why he is not a racist.

    Of course, I could be completely nuts and have my facts wrong.

  • Reporters will never report both sides fairly because “reporters”, today, refers to spoiled, BrightSmile, expensively coiffed, highly overpaid know-nothings who “report” what the corporate bosses pay propagandists to write for them to read on the TeeVee.

    TeeVee-addled Americans have proven themselves utterly incapable of thinking, in particular about their own real interests.

  • For the sake of full disclosure, I am a Mormon who took part in the Middle East studies degree program at Brigham Young University and a long-time Romney supporter. That said, I’ll give a guy latitude on what he said, but if he actually believes that Muslims are inherently bad and the “clash of civilizations” reasoning, I can’t vote for him.

    I am VERY interested in knowing what he actually said. I have a hard time believing he made the statements, or at least that they reflect what he really believes. If he meant to say “I don’t have to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be a credible preident,” I’m down with that. Even if he said”a practicing Muslim may have conflict of interest issues when dealing with Middle East issues,” I could even go for that. If he said “Middle Easterners who use Muslim rhetoric to justify political violence can’t be reasoned with,” I agree 100%. I want to know what he said/thinks and I’m skeptical that he said things the way they’re being reported. In the age of YouTube, I have a hard time believing no one had a recording device on a presidential candidate during these events. The fact that no such record has surfaced tells me it never happened that way.

  • TeeVee-addled Americans have proven themselves utterly incapable of thinking, in particular about their own real interests.

    Good point. I’d say that the media has convinced many Americans that their interests are Terrorism, Gay Marriage, Family Values, Abortion, etc. This is a great dodge for politicians on both sides because it keeps those Americans from thinking about pocketbook issues, health care, and education. If the veil should ever be lifted from the eyes of America there will be a number of politicians swinging from lampposts.

  • Regarding him thinking that all Muslims are radical, let’s keep his perspectives on the topic in mind:

    This is about Shi’a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

    He groups in literally all Muslims because he’s apparently so ignorant of what he declares to be the greatest threat to our nation that he apparently doesn’t realize that the difference between Sunni and Shi’a and al Qaeda is roughly analogous to the distinction between Protestant, Catholic, and the Aryan Nations. You can hate al Qaeda and Aryan Nations without having a problem with the underlying religions.

  • Rick,

    Did you really just fault Mitt’s willingness to fight Islamic radicalism no matter what brand of the faith it applies to? I don’t take that statement to mean that Sunnis in general are like Al Qaeda, I take it to mean that he won’t simply fight extremism that calls itself Al Queda or the Mulsim Brotherhood or whatever. He is saying he’s against extremism of every stripe. I have no problem with that.

  • It seems to me that as a thinking member of the church

    COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ALERT!!!!

  • I am an American and a muslim. And I can’t express joy enough by reading the comments here from my fellow compatriots expressing outrage towards bigotry. You are the people is what makes this nation great and indeed the face the world needs to see. It is absolutely true that bigotry against muslim in the US is quite accepted (as compared to other similar entities) and is on the rise, but still my life in the US is still better than a muslim living in Saudi arabia, pakistan, egypt, uzbekistan etc…
    Let’s counter bigotry and extremism in whatever form and against whoever it may be directed against to work toward a better world.

    Believe me when I say that barring out and out a few extremist militants who truely advocate murder, most extremists (mullah’s etc.) sound exactly like our extremists who we rever in the US including Pat robertson, Michael Savage, Ann couler , Falwell , the TBN ministries and so forth.

    God bless the USA, and God bless my fellow Americans. It is you , whom the Founding Fathers would consider their inheritors not the likes of Free Republic crowd for example.

  • Good for him! The less muslims in America, the safer it is! Treat all muslims as terrorists and get them out of our country! They will kill you the moment your back is turned!

  • Comments are closed.